Murder Charge

Waikato Times, Volume 109, Issue 18350, 9 June 1931, Page 8

Murder Charge

KAIPAKI SENSATION. DEATH OF ARTHUR ROSSITER. RICKARDS ON TRIAL. The case in which Reginald Norman Thomas Rickards was charged with the murder of Arthur Rossiter, at Kaipaki, was continued in the Supreme Court, Hamilton, yesterday, beforo IVIr Justice Herdman and a Jury. Mr H. T. Gillies presented the case for the Crown, Mr J. J. Sullivan (Auckland) appearing for prisoner. Rickards throughout the trial has sat quietly In the dock, apparently following the evidence with the closest attention. After w r e went to press Olive May Rossiter, daughter of deceased, continued her evidence. William C. W r ynne, bank official, Hamilton, expressed the opinion that the writing on the telegram was not that of either the late Arthur Rossiter or of his son Albert, witli the writing of both of whom he was familiar. He considered the writing, on the telegram and that in the statement made to the police by Rickards were written by the same person. Evidence by Deceased’s Son. Albert Francis Rossiter (son of the late Arthur Rossiter), who occupies a house on another part of his late father’s property, said that on the day before his father was shot the phone at his father's house was in working order. He last saw his father alive about 8.30 on the Friday morning, after he had assisted with the milking. He was then hearty and well. Witness-said he had known Rickards for about two years. He practically made his headquarters at witness' father’s place. Witness had never noticed any abnormal _ signs about Rickards during the time he had known him. There was usually a single-barrelled breech-loading shotgun in his father’s house. On the day of his father’s death there was plenty of benzine and kerosene at his father’s house. Answering Mr Sullivan, witness asid there had been some feeling between Rickards and himself over flic theft of the money. Witness later apologised to Rickards for having accused him of the theft. He did not know whether any feeling existed between his father and Rickards. Rickards, witness said, was intelligent enough, but was stubborn, and would insist upon doing everything his own way, and would not listen to the advice of others who knew better. .'Neil Stuart Campbell, telephone faultman, said an examination of the telephone in Rossiler’s house revealed that the wire had been cut inside the house. The cut had been bound together again with cotton and string and pinned to the wallpaper to prevent it from falling. Constable J. Forsythe, of Te Awamulu, said that in company with Constable Rimmer lie visited Rossiter’s house on the afternoon of April 8, in search of Rickards, but they saw no sign of him. Two days later—on Friday, the 10th—they again visited Rossiter’s house at 10 a.m. Witness went to the back door. When witness returned to the back of the house after searching a shed he saw Constable Rimmer and Rickards together. Rimmer said: “He has shot the old man.” On entering the house witness found the dead body of Arthur Rossiter in the front bedroom covered with a blanket. In ihc fireplace in the kitchen he found an empty cartridge. Replying to Mr Sullivan, witness said Rickards seemed unconcerned over the matter. Dr. A. G. Waddell ascribed tho cause of death to haemorrhage due to gunshot wound. Discovery of Body.

Constable A. R. Rimmer, describing the visit which lie and Constable Forsythe made to Rossiter’s house on the Friday morning, said he noticed a footprint on the window-sill of the centre room. There was a blanket nailed over the window on the inside. While Constable Forsythe was searching a shed witness, behind a hedge, saw the back door slowly open and Rickards’ head appear, and look stealthily around. He then slipped out and closed the door behind him. Witness ran across to him and said: “You are under arrest l’or escaping from custody.” Rickards replied: “I am under arrest for more than that I have just shot old Rossiter.” Witness asked: “Where is Mr Rossiter?” Rickards answered: "Inside.” He then led witness lo the front room, where lay the dead body of Rossiter, covered with a blanket. There was a hole through lhe head, and a large pool of blood near by. Witness (old Rickards he would he charged with the murder of Rossiter, and gave him the usual caution that anything lie might say would be used in evidence against him. Rickards made no reply. When Constable Forsythe returned, witness in prisoner’s presence, told Forsythe that accused had shot the old man. Rickards made no reply. Constable Forsythe later left Hie house lo get a 'phone message through. Rickards, whilst sitting with witness, remarked: "All this trouble has come about through £lO being stolen. The old man accused me of taking it. but I didn’t.” Prisoner later said he had “been seeing red lately," and mentioned that while at Tauranga a piece of metal came from his nose. In subsequent conversation Rickards said: “I waited for the old man coming in for breakfast, and when ho sat down I shot him through the back of the head." lie also slated that lie dragged lhe old man from the kitchen to the front bedroom by the feet. “Drow tho Gun on You." Witness asked him if ho had noticed him at the hack window. He replied, “No, but I saw you at the front window, and drew I lie gun on you, but you moved away 100 quickly.’’ Witness remarked: “But you would not have shot, me, would you?'' He answered: ”1 don't know what ! would have done. 1 have been seeing red lately." lie then handed witness three live cartridges. Asked if he had had anything lo eat lately, Rickards said he could not eat. All lie could do was smoke, smoke, smoke. He added that he had been sleeping in the hushes lately. Detective Sergeant Thompson said that on interviewing accused at Rossi-

ter’s house on the morning of Mr Rossitcr’s death, Rickards, after being given the usual caution, said: “I have been seeing red lately. I have the lust to kill.” He then handed witness an envelope in which was a small piece of metal, which he said he had blown from his nose at Tauranga. Witness asked him if he could write, and on his replying in the affirmative witness told him that if he had anyting further to say he had hettir write it. A Statement Written. Rickards then sat at the table and wrote the following statement:— “Mr Rossiter some months ago had some money stolen from the house. He blamed * me. Although I cleared myself with the police lie still had suspicions against me. He still believed me to be the thief. It preyed on my mind. I had the lust to kill All I wanted was to kill. I came into the house and Rossiter came in soon after. I asked him where my clothes were. I had a gun in my hand and I shot him through the back of the head.” Witness went on to describe the interior of the kitchen. The chair on which the old man had apparently sat when he met his death was splashed with blood. There was blood and pulverised bone and flesh on the food on the table and on the wall. An empty cartridge case was found in the fireplace of the front sitting-room. Detective A. J. White said Rickards remarked to him: “My brain has been in a whirl for a month.” Witness produced a number of pellets found on the, kitchen table and floor, and in the wall. In the breakfast-room there was a smouldering fire, a pot of hot tea standing on the hob. In the embers was a piece of partially burned rag containing blood stains.

TO-DAY’S PROCEEDINGS. WAS PRISONER INSANE? MEDICAL EXPERTS DIFFER. CASE FOR THE DEFENCE. In opening for the defence Mr Sullivan said it was impossible for him to deny that the hand that shot Rossiter was that of prisoner. He did put forward the legitimate legal defence, however, that at the time accused fired the shot he was sufficiently insane to render him incapable of understanding fully the nature or quality of his act. Medical evidence would be called to show that prisoner was an epileptic. The man had made numerous statements to doctors and others, and through them all ran the same story. It went to. show that he was born in Dayvson City, Alaska, 3? years ago, that lie went to the war with the Canadian forces, and was badly wounded in France. One of the wounds was in the neck. He was definitely suffering from epilepsy and while actually in custody awaiting his trial he had been seized with an epileptic fit. Medical evidence would show that prisoner was suffering from sinusitis, a disease affecting tho tissues and cavities at the back of the nose, a disease which definitely led to insanity. Counsel said that the present was the first case that he knew of (in New Zealand during the past 30 years at any rate) that actual disease of the brain had been advanced as a defence in a criminal prosecution. Mr Sullivan referred to other well-known murder trials —Lionel Terry, Dr. Cook and Higgins, the Waikino murderer where it was proved that they had suffered from hallucinations, under the impression that they were being persecuted. In .the present case it was submitted that prisoner suffered from a mental disease. Behind the nose was a fine tissue through which passed a series of nerves. An X-ray photograph of prisoner’s head showed that this tissue and the cavities behind known as sinuses, were all diseased and that in consequence of this diseased condition his brain was likely to be affected and that it might render him unaccountable for his actions. Mr Sullivan went on to review the evidence and traced into prisoner’s conduct over a period of years a strangeness of action, an irresponsibility, a moodiness, and an absence of appreciation of his acts. He quoted cases where epileptics had committed assaults about which, on becoming normal again, they knew nothing. Tne assault on Miss Rossiter with the spanner was, said Mr Sullivan, the typical act of an epileptic.

Counsel held that while Rickards may have known that lie had sent the telegram to Miss Rossiter, while he may have been fully aware of ordering a tin of benzine to be sent to Rossitcr’s house, while lie may have known, when lie cut the telephone wire, that he was severing the connection, and while lie may have known also that by firing the gun at the old man, lie would kill him, his mental condition was such that lie was incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of his act.

Medical Evldenco. Dr. J. Hardy Neil, of Auckland, said he had examined accused on April 25. liis complaint consisted of severe head pains and headaches, blockage and discharge from the nose. On examination lie found all the sinuses or air passages behind the nose diseased. An X-ray corroborated this. Witness, by means of a model, demonstrated io the jury the process by which diseased sinuses spread their affection to Hie brain. Mr Sullivan: Did accused, in your opinion at I lie time he shot Rossiter possess the power of forming his own rational judgment and was lie capable of appreciating the nature and quality of his act? I do not think he acted rationally. Was his act an act of his own independent volition in the true sense? —Xo. Mr Sullivan: Was his act biassed by mental disease? i think so. His Honour pointed out that it was no defence that a man was unable to control his actions. Witness, in answer lo further questions by Mr Sullivan, considered that Rickards' action was influenced by a diseased brain and that accused was unable to control his actions, He would say that a man suffering from sinusitis in a chronic stage, practically up to its maximum, as Rickards was, was not responsible for his actions. Sinusitis in this form was likely to aggravate epilepsy. Sinusitis was likely lo being about a change of character and menial outlook, apart from epilepsy. Witness said lie had no reason lo doubt prisoner's story about being wounded in lhe neck, li was possible, as lie had declared, for a piece of shrapnel to pass upward from the neck and find access through the nose. In answer In His Honour witness said he did not know whether Rickards suffered from delusions. His Honour: in your opinion was his disease of such a nature as to render

him incapable of understanding the nature and quality of his act when he killed this man? —Yes. His Honour: In your opinion did accused, owing to bis disease, know what lie was doing when ho killed Rossiter ?

Witness said that owing to the disease from which accused was suffering he would be unable to exercise that self-restraint and judgment which a normal man would have ■shown, when, under provocation he was tempted to commit an act of violence. Did Not Know Act Was Wrong. His Honour: Was he, in your opinion, incapable of knowing that the act he committed was wrong?—Yes. Mr Gillies asked witness, if Rickards had gone to him as an ordinary patient and had explained the symptoms from which he suffered, and knowing that he suffered from acute sinusitis, he would have certified him as insane?

Witness said it would have been necessary to have the man under observation for a time before certifying him insane. Dr. R. M. Beattie, formerly superintendent of the Avondale Mental Asylum, said he had had a long conversation with accused, during which he gained from him the information that his mother, who was a woman 18 stone in weight, with some American Indian blood, had been subjected to outbursts of violence and had lost her power of speech and the power of her limbs. Witness assumed from this that she had been an epileptic. Accused said his mother had told him that in his early years he had epileptic fits about four times a week. He told witness of his war record and said he had since suffered from headaches. When these were on he imagined someone was about to injure him, though he did not know whom. He also stated, that he sometimes went to do things and then forgot what they wsre. Witness added that accused told him that after he escaped from custody at Tauranga, lie did not remember' what happened. He wandered about, sleeping in bushes, and was unconscious of his actions or where he was from April 2 till April 9 the day before tho tragedy. He remembered going to Rossiter's house and waited for the old man entering. He asked Rossiter for his clothes and the latter told him that the police had them, lie said he then saw a gun and picked it up and shot the old man.

His Honour: He was then conscious and knew what ho was doing.—Yes. Witness, in answer to His Honour, said accused at the time was probably suffering from a post-epileptic state. Witness added that accused told him he had twice attempted to commit suicide, once by trying to jump from the Grafton Bridge in 1925 when he was pulled from the parapet by a passerby. He also attempted to gas himself at- Otahuhu in 1928, when he was prevented from taking his life by someone in the house. Witness was of opinion that Rickards had an epileptic lit or fits after ho escaped from Tauranga. This might have placed him in a dangerous mood. All epileptics must be regarded as dangerous. In answer to Mr Sullivan, witness said that Rickards’ acts in sending the telegram, ordering the tin of benzine and looking about stealthily before lie left ihc house were not inconsistent with Ihc acts of an insane man. Insane people were often very cunning and were usually conscious of what they were doing.

Some Knowledge of Act. Witness thought that Rickards, when lie shot Rossiter had some conscious knowledge of the act but not a full appreciation of its nature or quality. He considered accused’s action was due to an irresistible impulse when he saw the gun. He was not responsible for his act in the sense that a normal man would be. lie did not think accused was capable of fully appreciating the nature and quality of his act or that he was capable of knowing the rightness or wrongness of it. In answer to Mr Sullivan witness was of opinion that Rickards was suffering from an epileptic state when ho struck Miss Rossiter at Tauranga. It, was quite possible for him to have wandered all Lhe way from Tauranga to Kaipaki in that state. Mr Gillies: Do you consider that a man in an epileptic state, and unconscious of what he was doing. could write the following post card to Miss Rossiter, after the assault: “ Dear Olive, —Please dear don’t tell dad or the police as It will cause some very unpleasant particulars being brought out. I am very sorry, dear, I did it. I don’t know what came over me.” Witness said it was not known to what the letter card referred. His Honour: Assuming that it referred to the attack on Miss Rossiter would not the inference to be drawn be rather that he knew what lie had done and was afraid of arrest. —Yes. Mr Gillies: Is it not an established characteristic of epileptic automatism where acts of violence are concerned, that there is no preparation before and no knowledge after the act?—Yes. Mr Gillies: Would not the fact of wrapping up the spanner in cloth and hiding it be evidence of preparation?— It might. Witness considered the cutting of the telephone wire rather the act of a madman. Mr Gillies: Was it not rather a preparation for the reception of Miss Rossiter, who on receiving the telegram, that her father was ill, would probably have ’phoned him. Unable to get him she would then probably have hurried home. Witness did not regard it in that light. Mr Gillies: Is it not a characteristic of epileptic automatism that the epileptic, after an act of violence, takes no steps to conceal tho result?—Yes. Mr Gillies: This man dragged tin body from the kitchen to the bedroom and covered it with a blanket. His Honour: Carefully covered it. Mr Gillies: And lie then mopped up the blood with rags. Witness considered (his consistent with a post epileptic state. Miss Rossiter, recalled, said she received tho post card from Rickards on the day following the assault. Forgetfulness, Chief Characteristic. Medical evidence in rebuttal was given by Dr. S. Gribben, of Hamilton, who said lie had had more than 20 years' experience as superintendent of almost all the mental hospitals in New Zealand. He had also experience in menial asylums in Great Britain. One of the chief characteristics of epileptic automatism was forget fulness. There was a continuance of ordinary actions without knowledge. Witness said he had followed the proceedings in lhe Lower Court and had examined Rickards Iwiee since, lie thought there were inconsistencies in his statements. His Honour: What do you think of this man’s mental condition?—l consider that at. Hie lime of lhe murder lie knew Ihc nature and quality of his act and also that it was wrong, but it is reasonable to assume, owing to his epileptic condition and his sinusitis, that his power of control was not equal lo that of a normal man. (Continued Jn next column.).

His Honour: Was he a sufferer from any delusions?—lt is my opinion that lie was not. His Honour: Was he suffering from congenital imbecility?—No. liis Honour: Was he suffering in your opinion, from any disease of the mind?—That is difficult to answer. There is no evidence of a palpable disease of the mind. Where a person is suffering from epilepsy it. is impossible to say whether he is of a normal state of mind. In further answer to Ills Honour, witness said he was of opinion that accused knew xvhat he was doing at the time of the murder. Asked by Mr Sullivan if Rickards suffered from any disease of the mind, witness said there was no evidence of any classified menial disorder. He was of opinion, however, that a man suffering from epilepsy might possess some mental abnormality that'was not obvious. The question of whether sinusitis caused mental disorder was one that was very much under discussion at present. Epilepsy did not necessarily affect the brain. Sinusitis might produce mental affection, in one case and not in another. Coupled with definite cpilcpsis there was nothing to show that sinusitis in an advanced stage affected the brain. He saw no evidence that prisoner was in a post-epileptic state at the time lie committed the crime. In a condition of epileptic automatism there was sometimes partial memory. No Disease of the Mind. Witness said lie saw no evidence of disease of the mind in prisoner. Mr Sullivan: What signs would you look for? irritability, loss of self control and maniacal furore. Mr Sullivan: Haven’t we got signs of irritability?—Not marked. His Honour: We get evidence of that in Court here sometimes. (Laughter.) Dr. Gribben said Rickards had told him that he was about to leave the house when he saw the gun standing open. 'lt was this sight that determined him to shoot the old man. In the case of an epileptic llie power to resist the temptation to pick up the gun might, have been diminished. Asked if lie saw in this action of Rickards in picking up the gun any signs of preparation, witness said he did not. There were, however, signs of a definite plan in the sending of the telegram to Miss Rossiter. (Proceeding.)